kotovalexarian-likes-github/rails--rails
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/rails/rails.git synced 2022-11-09 12:12:34 -05:00
Code Releases Activity
rails--rails/activerecord/test/fixtures/interests.yml

34 lines
496 B
YAML
Raw Normal View History

Providing support for :inverse_of as an option to associations. You can now add an :inverse_of option to has_one, has_many and belongs_to associations. This is best described with an example: class Man < ActiveRecord::Base has_one :face, :inverse_of => :man end class Face < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :man, :inverse_of => :face end m = Man.first f = m.face Without :inverse_of m and f.man would be different instances of the same object (f.man being pulled from the database again). With these new :inverse_of options m and f.man are the same in memory instance. Currently :inverse_of supports has_one and has_many (but not the :through variants) associations. It also supplies inverse support for belongs_to associations where the inverse is a has_one and it's not a polymorphic. Signed-off-by: Murray Steele <muz@h-lame.com> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Kemper <jeremy@bitsweat.net>
2009-05-01 11:01:13 -04:00
trainspotting:
topic: Trainspotting
zine: staying_in
Replace test `Man` with `Human` The commit replaces the `Man` model used in tests with a `Human` model. It also replaces the existing `Human` model with a `SuperHuman` model inheriting from `Human`. While this may seem like a cosmetic change, I see it as more of an inclusivity change. I think it makes sense for a number of reasons: * Prior to this commit the `Human` model inherited from `Man`. At best this makes no sense (it should be the other way around). At worst it is offensive and harmful to the community. * It doesn't seem inclusive to me to have exclusively male-gendered examples in the codebase. * There is no particular reason for these examples to be gendered. * `man` is hard to grep for, since it also matches `many, manager, manual, etc` For the most part this is a simple search and replace. The one exception to that is that I had to add the table name to the model so we could use "humans" instead of "humen".
2020-08-13 18:11:28 -04:00
human: gordon
Providing support for :inverse_of as an option to associations. You can now add an :inverse_of option to has_one, has_many and belongs_to associations. This is best described with an example: class Man < ActiveRecord::Base has_one :face, :inverse_of => :man end class Face < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :man, :inverse_of => :face end m = Man.first f = m.face Without :inverse_of m and f.man would be different instances of the same object (f.man being pulled from the database again). With these new :inverse_of options m and f.man are the same in memory instance. Currently :inverse_of supports has_one and has_many (but not the :through variants) associations. It also supplies inverse support for belongs_to associations where the inverse is a has_one and it's not a polymorphic. Signed-off-by: Murray Steele <muz@h-lame.com> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Kemper <jeremy@bitsweat.net>
2009-05-01 11:01:13 -04:00
birdwatching:
topic: Birdwatching
zine: staying_in
Replace test `Man` with `Human` The commit replaces the `Man` model used in tests with a `Human` model. It also replaces the existing `Human` model with a `SuperHuman` model inheriting from `Human`. While this may seem like a cosmetic change, I see it as more of an inclusivity change. I think it makes sense for a number of reasons: * Prior to this commit the `Human` model inherited from `Man`. At best this makes no sense (it should be the other way around). At worst it is offensive and harmful to the community. * It doesn't seem inclusive to me to have exclusively male-gendered examples in the codebase. * There is no particular reason for these examples to be gendered. * `man` is hard to grep for, since it also matches `many, manager, manual, etc` For the most part this is a simple search and replace. The one exception to that is that I had to add the table name to the model so we could use "humans" instead of "humen".
2020-08-13 18:11:28 -04:00
human: gordon
Providing support for :inverse_of as an option to associations. You can now add an :inverse_of option to has_one, has_many and belongs_to associations. This is best described with an example: class Man < ActiveRecord::Base has_one :face, :inverse_of => :man end class Face < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :man, :inverse_of => :face end m = Man.first f = m.face Without :inverse_of m and f.man would be different instances of the same object (f.man being pulled from the database again). With these new :inverse_of options m and f.man are the same in memory instance. Currently :inverse_of supports has_one and has_many (but not the :through variants) associations. It also supplies inverse support for belongs_to associations where the inverse is a has_one and it's not a polymorphic. Signed-off-by: Murray Steele <muz@h-lame.com> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Kemper <jeremy@bitsweat.net>
2009-05-01 11:01:13 -04:00
stamp_collecting:
topic: Stamp Collecting
zine: staying_in
Replace test `Man` with `Human` The commit replaces the `Man` model used in tests with a `Human` model. It also replaces the existing `Human` model with a `SuperHuman` model inheriting from `Human`. While this may seem like a cosmetic change, I see it as more of an inclusivity change. I think it makes sense for a number of reasons: * Prior to this commit the `Human` model inherited from `Man`. At best this makes no sense (it should be the other way around). At worst it is offensive and harmful to the community. * It doesn't seem inclusive to me to have exclusively male-gendered examples in the codebase. * There is no particular reason for these examples to be gendered. * `man` is hard to grep for, since it also matches `many, manager, manual, etc` For the most part this is a simple search and replace. The one exception to that is that I had to add the table name to the model so we could use "humans" instead of "humen".
2020-08-13 18:11:28 -04:00
human: gordon
Providing support for :inverse_of as an option to associations. You can now add an :inverse_of option to has_one, has_many and belongs_to associations. This is best described with an example: class Man < ActiveRecord::Base has_one :face, :inverse_of => :man end class Face < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :man, :inverse_of => :face end m = Man.first f = m.face Without :inverse_of m and f.man would be different instances of the same object (f.man being pulled from the database again). With these new :inverse_of options m and f.man are the same in memory instance. Currently :inverse_of supports has_one and has_many (but not the :through variants) associations. It also supplies inverse support for belongs_to associations where the inverse is a has_one and it's not a polymorphic. Signed-off-by: Murray Steele <muz@h-lame.com> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Kemper <jeremy@bitsweat.net>
2009-05-01 11:01:13 -04:00
hunting:
topic: Hunting
zine: going_out
Replace test `Man` with `Human` The commit replaces the `Man` model used in tests with a `Human` model. It also replaces the existing `Human` model with a `SuperHuman` model inheriting from `Human`. While this may seem like a cosmetic change, I see it as more of an inclusivity change. I think it makes sense for a number of reasons: * Prior to this commit the `Human` model inherited from `Man`. At best this makes no sense (it should be the other way around). At worst it is offensive and harmful to the community. * It doesn't seem inclusive to me to have exclusively male-gendered examples in the codebase. * There is no particular reason for these examples to be gendered. * `man` is hard to grep for, since it also matches `many, manager, manual, etc` For the most part this is a simple search and replace. The one exception to that is that I had to add the table name to the model so we could use "humans" instead of "humen".
2020-08-13 18:11:28 -04:00
human: steve
Providing support for :inverse_of as an option to associations. You can now add an :inverse_of option to has_one, has_many and belongs_to associations. This is best described with an example: class Man < ActiveRecord::Base has_one :face, :inverse_of => :man end class Face < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :man, :inverse_of => :face end m = Man.first f = m.face Without :inverse_of m and f.man would be different instances of the same object (f.man being pulled from the database again). With these new :inverse_of options m and f.man are the same in memory instance. Currently :inverse_of supports has_one and has_many (but not the :through variants) associations. It also supplies inverse support for belongs_to associations where the inverse is a has_one and it's not a polymorphic. Signed-off-by: Murray Steele <muz@h-lame.com> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Kemper <jeremy@bitsweat.net>
2009-05-01 11:01:13 -04:00
woodsmanship:
topic: Woodsmanship
zine: going_out
Replace test `Man` with `Human` The commit replaces the `Man` model used in tests with a `Human` model. It also replaces the existing `Human` model with a `SuperHuman` model inheriting from `Human`. While this may seem like a cosmetic change, I see it as more of an inclusivity change. I think it makes sense for a number of reasons: * Prior to this commit the `Human` model inherited from `Man`. At best this makes no sense (it should be the other way around). At worst it is offensive and harmful to the community. * It doesn't seem inclusive to me to have exclusively male-gendered examples in the codebase. * There is no particular reason for these examples to be gendered. * `man` is hard to grep for, since it also matches `many, manager, manual, etc` For the most part this is a simple search and replace. The one exception to that is that I had to add the table name to the model so we could use "humans" instead of "humen".
2020-08-13 18:11:28 -04:00
human: steve
Providing support for :inverse_of as an option to associations. You can now add an :inverse_of option to has_one, has_many and belongs_to associations. This is best described with an example: class Man < ActiveRecord::Base has_one :face, :inverse_of => :man end class Face < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :man, :inverse_of => :face end m = Man.first f = m.face Without :inverse_of m and f.man would be different instances of the same object (f.man being pulled from the database again). With these new :inverse_of options m and f.man are the same in memory instance. Currently :inverse_of supports has_one and has_many (but not the :through variants) associations. It also supplies inverse support for belongs_to associations where the inverse is a has_one and it's not a polymorphic. Signed-off-by: Murray Steele <muz@h-lame.com> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Kemper <jeremy@bitsweat.net>
2009-05-01 11:01:13 -04:00
Add inverse polymorphic association support. [#3520 state:resolved] Signed-off-by: Eloy Duran <eloy.de.enige@gmail.com>
2009-11-29 00:46:09 -05:00
survival:
Providing support for :inverse_of as an option to associations. You can now add an :inverse_of option to has_one, has_many and belongs_to associations. This is best described with an example: class Man < ActiveRecord::Base has_one :face, :inverse_of => :man end class Face < ActiveRecord::Base belongs_to :man, :inverse_of => :face end m = Man.first f = m.face Without :inverse_of m and f.man would be different instances of the same object (f.man being pulled from the database again). With these new :inverse_of options m and f.man are the same in memory instance. Currently :inverse_of supports has_one and has_many (but not the :through variants) associations. It also supplies inverse support for belongs_to associations where the inverse is a has_one and it's not a polymorphic. Signed-off-by: Murray Steele <muz@h-lame.com> Signed-off-by: Jeremy Kemper <jeremy@bitsweat.net>
2009-05-01 11:01:13 -04:00
topic: Survival
zine: going_out
Replace test `Man` with `Human` The commit replaces the `Man` model used in tests with a `Human` model. It also replaces the existing `Human` model with a `SuperHuman` model inheriting from `Human`. While this may seem like a cosmetic change, I see it as more of an inclusivity change. I think it makes sense for a number of reasons: * Prior to this commit the `Human` model inherited from `Man`. At best this makes no sense (it should be the other way around). At worst it is offensive and harmful to the community. * It doesn't seem inclusive to me to have exclusively male-gendered examples in the codebase. * There is no particular reason for these examples to be gendered. * `man` is hard to grep for, since it also matches `many, manager, manual, etc` For the most part this is a simple search and replace. The one exception to that is that I had to add the table name to the model so we could use "humans" instead of "humen".
2020-08-13 18:11:28 -04:00
human: steve
Add inverse polymorphic association support. [#3520 state:resolved] Signed-off-by: Eloy Duran <eloy.de.enige@gmail.com>
2009-11-29 00:46:09 -05:00
llama_wrangling:
topic: Llama Wrangling
Replace test `Man` with `Human` The commit replaces the `Man` model used in tests with a `Human` model. It also replaces the existing `Human` model with a `SuperHuman` model inheriting from `Human`. While this may seem like a cosmetic change, I see it as more of an inclusivity change. I think it makes sense for a number of reasons: * Prior to this commit the `Human` model inherited from `Man`. At best this makes no sense (it should be the other way around). At worst it is offensive and harmful to the community. * It doesn't seem inclusive to me to have exclusively male-gendered examples in the codebase. * There is no particular reason for these examples to be gendered. * `man` is hard to grep for, since it also matches `many, manager, manual, etc` For the most part this is a simple search and replace. The one exception to that is that I had to add the table name to the model so we could use "humans" instead of "humen".
2020-08-13 18:11:28 -04:00
polymorphic_human: gordon (Human)
Copy permalink